(18-10-2013 05:47 PM)WeAreTheCosmos Wrote: Remember the cake maker that refused the homosexual couple? Looks like the tables have turned.

And for those saying he can't legally deny them based on their religion... He could very well be christian himself, and denying service for other reasons.. Probably the hate they have for homosexuals.

The information that we have is that he's denying them service based on their religion.

This isn't rocket science, guys.

As crappy and messed up as it is, the gay guy is legally wrong and can be sued and SHOULD lose based on objective law.

smh

Laws are laws. Protected statuses are protected statuses. The fact that he wanted to make it a point to say it was because of their religion is where he messed up. He could have just denied their service and he would have been in the legal right.

(18-10-2013 02:49 PM)kingschosen Wrote: Ummm... the people that voted "No".

Please defend your vote from a legal standpoint.

How is this not discrimination?

Legally it probably is grounds but that is more of a condemnation of the law than the action. If the WBC were to contact you for services would you not wish the right to refuse service?

BTW I do feel this should go both ways. If you object to something on moral grounds then yes you should face the consequences such as publicity and loss of business but it should not be illegal.

Yeah, I would refuse.

But I'm intelligent enough to not bring a protected status into it. You can deny service for literally ANYTHING except discrimination. This guy had an easy out but wanted to make a point of it being because of religion. You just can't do that in PC America.

(18-10-2013 06:00 PM)kingschosen Wrote: Laws are laws. Protected statuses are protected statuses. The fact that he wanted to make it a point to say it was because of their religion is where he messed up. He could have just denied their service and he would have been in the legal right.

There was no contract, so what tort damages the plaintiff's gonna sue for? They had to settle for a crappier more expensive photographer? Any such suit's gonna be thrown outta court outta hand. As it should be. If the ACLU picks it up then it's worth consideration but that ain't gonna happen here. Dude's discrimination caused no tort damage. Done.

(18-10-2013 06:00 PM)kingschosen Wrote: Laws are laws. Protected statuses are protected statuses. The fact that he wanted to make it a point to say it was because of their religion is where he messed up. He could have just denied their service and he would have been in the legal right.

There was no contract, so what tort damages the plaintiff's gonna sue for? They had to settle for a crappier more expensive photographer? Any such suit's gonna be thrown outta court outta hand. As it should be. If the ACLU picks it up then it's worth consideration but that ain't gonna happen here.

Oh I agree nothing will come of it and it won't get picked up, it's just the principle of it. People would be screaming their heads off if it was the other way around.

I try to be neutral and fair in everything, so it's impossible for me to side with the gay guy based on applicable laws... I want to side with the gay guy because I know the point he's trying to make, but I can't because we're bound by the law.

(18-10-2013 06:00 PM)kingschosen Wrote: As crappy and messed up as it is, the gay guy is legally wrong and can be sued and SHOULD lose based on objective law.

Yeah so it's blatant discrimination but so the fuck what? Unless you can show tort damage from the blatant discrimination, you ain't got dick grounds to sue for. Nothing illegal about being a racist or a bigot as long as I ain't tort law damaging you (well I guess criminally damaging you would also count ).

The reason I was quite vague on the situation in the OP is that I completely fabricated it (though similar events may well have happened for all I know).

The reason for my deception is that I wanted to test something. Just before I made this poll I was reading a Christian article on gay rights. It mentioned a Christian photographer who was being sued for refusing to photograph a gay marriage and the article asked whether the people behind the lawsuit (and gay rights proponents in general) would condemn a gay photographer refusing to cover an anti gay marriage rally just as strongly (or think he should face a lawsuit at all). This got me thinking about my own position and that of the atheist community. I decided to test the suggestion that gay rights proponents (such as the general atheist community) would apply their views selectively by posting this poll here and an identical one (but with the situation reversed) here on AF.org. I figured that if both polls were consistent with each other and either supported or did not support the photographer then that would demonstrate reasonable objectivity across our communities as a whole. If the polls returned conflicting answers both supporting the homosexual person then it would demonstrate a bias in our communities towards supporting the homosexual over the Christian, regardless of the situation.

I'm pleased to say that our communities passed my experiment. Both polls were consistent with each other and supported the photographer. TTA voted that it was the right of a homosexual photographer to refuse a religious organisation's event and AF voted that it was the right of the Christian photographer to refuse a gay organisation's event.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....BestFerdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.WorstFerdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.

I support the right of any private organization or business to choose who they do business with and under what terms. When Christian businesses refuse to provide services to gays or any other group, I don't feel they should be subject to legal repercussions. Their consumer base will ultimately decide who they choose to support and bad business practices will lose out eventually. The fact that I agree far more with this fellows moral stance doesn't change what is fair.

Edit: didn't see the last post before I posted. Doesn't change my opinion but I think the answers to this will vary greatly depending on who you're polling and who is refusing who in your scenario.

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who has said it- not even if I have said it- unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. - Buddha

(21-10-2013 09:31 AM)Ohio Sky Wrote: I support the right of any private organization or business to choose who they do business with and under what terms. When Christian businesses refuse to provide services to gays or any other group, I don't feel they should be subject to legal repercussions. Their consumer base will ultimately decide who they choose to support and bad business practices will lose out eventually. The fact that I agree far more with this fellows moral stance doesn't change what is fair.

Edit: didn't see the last post before I posted. Doesn't change my opinion but I think the answers to this will vary greatly depending on who you're polling and who is refusing who in your scenario.

As I've been stating over and over. You cannot deny service because of a protected status... it doesn't matter how "private" your business is.

If you deny service and admit that it was because of a certain status and that status is protected, you are able to be sued and, by objective law, lose.